Giving False Information About Educational Qualifications For Marriage Not Cheating; No Grounds For Divorce: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute, held that concealing the true educational qualification and lying about it for the purpose of marriage does not constitute the offence of deceiving or cheating as contemplated in Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. The court also highlighted that none of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute, held that concealing the true educational qualification and lying about it for the purpose of marriage does not constitute the offence of deceiving or cheating as contemplated in Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. The court also highlighted that none of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act would cover the said instance either as a condition for the marriage or for granting a divorce.
“The counsel for petitioner as well as petitioner No.3 could not justify as to how the performance of marriage by giving false information about educational qualification would amount to deceiving a person to deliver the property. The petitioner No.3 is admittedly cannot be said to be property. The word “deceive” clearly indicates otherwise a person was not bound to deliver the property”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur emphasized.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia underscored that petitioner no.3/husband failed to prove how the act of his wife, who allegedly gave false information that she has passed Class-12th when she has only passed Class-10th would amount to deceiving or cheating.
Any marriage conducted on the basis of wrong information about educational qualification will not make it a void or voidable marriage within the definitions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court remarked.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia also took note of the omnibus allegations levelled by the petitioner no.3-husband and relatives against the wife's mother, alleging that the latter is engaged in prostitution. However, the wife's mother was not impleaded in the writ petition despite her character assassination in the course of arguments.
“…Assassination of the character of a woman by alleging that she is involved in prostitution is a serious matter and the Court proceedings are public proceedings and, therefore, any party cannot be allowed to assassinate the character of a person without any basis and without impleading her as respondent in the writ petition, therefore the mother-in law… is granted liberty… can prosecute the petitioners for making wild allegations of character assassination”, the court noted.
When the court raised this issue with the petitioner-husband and his counsel, it came to be known that no such allegation has been included in the writ petition, though the husband mentioned this detail in his complaint made to the SHO of Mahila Thana, Katni, citing his wife as the source of information.
Initially, the petitioners' counsel tried to withdraw the writ petition after arguing the matter at length. This plea was refused by the court, considering the nature of the allegations made against various persons.
The SHO had earlier reached the conclusion that petitioner no.3 and respondent no.11 are married. However, the complainant-husband's stance that the marriage happened due to the fraudulent conduct of his wife was not approved by the police. No offence was made out necessitating the registration of a case against the wife and in-laws, inferred the SHO. According to the Police, the wife wanted to reside with her husband, though the latter was not interested in residing together.
The court also discouraged the petitioners' conduct of making general allegations of corruption against the police department because the SHO refused to register a case against his wife for cheating. The court opined that such allegations amount to defamation, which makes it the prerogative of police officials to move forward against the petitioners.
As a result, the petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs 25,000/- payable to the registry of the court within one month.
Advocate Vivek Agrawal & Advocate Ankit Singh Chauhan appeared for the petitioners. Govt. Advocate Mohan Sausarkar appeared for respondents 1 & 2.
Case Title: Bharat Singh Chouhan & Ors v. The Madhya State Of Pradesh Through Collector Katni District & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 7831 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 81